IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 03-673

:

v. :

:

KENNETH MOORE : 

MEMORANDUM

Savage, J. March 8, 2023

Kenneth Moore has moved for early termination of his six-year term of supervised 

release. He cites his perfect disciplinary record during his 16 years in prison and his full 

compliance while on supervision for 34 months. The government opposes the motion. 

It argues that supervision should not be terminated because the defendant waived his 

right to relief in his plea agreement, he has not shown that he will be harmed by serving 

his full term, and the supervised release term was necessary and appropriate.

Initially, we address the government’s waiver argument. As part of his plea 

agreement, Moore specifically waived his right to file a direct appeal and a collateral attack 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The waiver provision in the plea agreement provides:

In exchange for the undertakings made by the government in 

entering this plea agreement, the defendant . . . waives all 

rights to appeal or collaterally attack the defendant’s 

conviction, sentence, or any other matter relating to this 

prosecution, whether such a right to appeal or collateral attack 

arises under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255, or any other provision of law.

7/27/04 Guilty Plea Agreement.

Nothing in the plea agreement foreclosed Moore from moving for early termination 

of supervised release. He did waive his rights to file an appeal or a motion collaterally 

Case 2:03-cr-00673-TJS Document 151 Filed 03/08/23 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

attacking his sentence. His motion is not an attack upon his sentence. He 

acknowledges the sentence. His motion is not an appeal of his sentence, nor a request 

for reversal or vacation of the sentence.

The agreement specifically identifies three statutory grounds for challenging the 

conviction or sentence. A motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) is not one of them. The 

government relies on the undefined catchall “any other provision of law” language. Yet, 

it points to nothing in the guilty plea colloquy to show that Moore knowingly understood 

and willingly gave up his right to file for early termination of supervised release under § 

3583(e). Thus, we consider the motion on the merits.

A court may, in its discretion, terminate a term of supervised release after one year 

“if termination is warranted by the defendant’s conduct and is in the interest of justice.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Before doing so, the court must consider the sentencing factors 

set forth in § 3553(a). Despite the statutory mandate that a court consider all § 3553(a) 

factors, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the need for a sentence to reflect 

the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment 

is not relevant to the consideration of early termination of supervised release. United 

States v. Murray, 692 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2012).

Supervised release is not intended to be a form of punishment. It is meant to 

assist the defendant integrating into the community. It is a form of rehabilitation. United 

States v. Sheppard, 17 F.4th 449, 454 (3d Cir. 2021); United States v. Murray, 692 F.3d 

273, 280 (3d Cir. 2012).

When a court imposes a term of supervised release, it can only predict how the 

Case 2:03-cr-00673-TJS Document 151 Filed 03/08/23 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

defendant will respond to the rehabilitative process. It does not have the benefit of a 

track record while under supervision. After a period of imprisonment and supervision, 

the defendant’s conduct provides insight the sentencing court did not have when the 

sentence was imposed. A motion to terminate supervised release supplies a mechanism 

to reevaluate the efficacy of the rehabilitative process and the need for continuing 

supervision. 

Moore’s conduct is remarkable. He deserves recognition for his successful 

rehabilitation. His rehabilitation started years before he began his term of supervised 

release. While in prison, Moore took a multitude of classes and participated in 

innumerable programs earning certifications and awards. For example, he received his 

GED and a welding and construction certificate. He excelled in a cooking course, 

rising to the position of head cook in the prison kitchen. He left prison after sixteen years 

with a perfect disciplinary record – not even a minor infraction – a record we rarely see.

On supervised release, he has been fully compliant with all conditions. He has 

been steadily employed. He holds a managerial position. He has satisfied all financial 

obligations. He has maintained a stable residence. As a testament to his successful 

rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, Moore’s probation officer does not 

oppose early termination.

Moore has achieved all he can while on supervised release. He has 

demonstrated that he is rehabilitated. He cannot benefit, nor can society, from his 

remaining on supervised release.

We conclude that the motion is not barred by Moore’s plea agreement. We also 

Case 2:03-cr-00673-TJS Document 151 Filed 03/08/23 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

find that consideration of the relevant § 3553(a) factors favor early termination. 

Therefore, we shall grant the motion and terminate Moore’s supervised release.

Case 2:03-cr-00673-TJS Document 151 Filed 03/08/23 Page 4 of 4